Elderly driver surrenders licence while up in court for injuring cyclist

oceandweller wrote:

Retesting for over 70s can't come soon enough. It doesn't even have to be a full retest, since ability to drive isn't the main problem. A test just covering perception, judgement & reflexes would do it. My 2 penn'orth. & I'm 67, so I remember when 2d (as it was then) still bought something...

Credit to you, getting close to that age, for supporting retesting. In my experience, few of your peer group do.

I have a bit of personal experience of a similar case. My elderly father had his licence temporarily suspended following multiple strokes. Some months later, his doctors signed him off as fit to drive, against protestation by myself and my siblings, who could clearly see that he was not only brain impaired, but that he has minimal perception in the left hemisphere. (Walk into the room on his left, and his brain doesn't seem to process that you are there). So first day back on the road, he turned the wrong way onto a dual carriageway within a mile of his home, on a road he had driven hundreds of times, drove for 5 miles with oncoming traffic dodging out of his way,  then caused a collision on the exit roundabout, which obviously he was going the wrong way round. The police who attended the scene said that he could avoid a dangerous driving charge if he voluntarily surrendered his licence, which he did.

A year later, now aged 86, he applied to get his licence back. The more his children tried to talk him out of it, the more determined he was to prove us wrong. He only had to complete a noddy medical questionnaire (eg Do you suffer from blackouts?). Again I lobbied his doctor who said that fitness was judged purely on the answers that my father gave, and even if he lied, the doctor could not intervene, even though they had access to his medical history. There was no medical test apart from an eye test (which he passed).  I lobbied the local police, who said that as he had never been prosecuted for the accident, they could do nothing. Finally I spoke to his insurance company and in going through the detail with them, it came to light that he had claimed he had held his licence since age 17, whereas having surrendered his licence, legally he was now an 86 year old driver who had only held a licence for 1 month, and was therefore virtually uninsurable.

The law in this area truly is an ass, and the medical fraternity seem to be unable to help, even in a case where there is serious brain impairment.

Griff500 wrote:

oceandweller wrote:

Retesting for over 70s can't come soon enough. It doesn't even have to be a full retest, since ability to drive isn't the main problem. A test just covering perception, judgement & reflexes would do it. My 2 penn'orth. & I'm 67, so I remember when 2d (as it was then) still bought something...

Credit to you, getting close to that age, for supporting retesting. In my experience, few of your peer group do.

I have a bit of personal experience of a similar case. My elderly father had his licence temporarily suspended following multiple strokes. Some months later, his doctors signed him off as fit to drive, against protestation by myself and my siblings, who could clearly see that he was not only brain impaired, but that he has minimal perception in the left hemisphere. (Walk into the room on his left, and his brain doesn't seem to process that you are there). So first day back on the road, he turned the wrong way onto a dual carriageway within a mile of his home, on a road he had driven hundreds of times, drove for 5 miles with oncoming traffic dodging out of his way,  then caused a collision on the exit roundabout, which obviously he was going the wrong way round. The police who attended the scene said that he could avoid a dangerous driving charge if he voluntarily surrendered his licence, which he did.

A year later, now aged 86, he applied to get his licence back. The more his children tried to talk him out of it, the more determined he was to prove us wrong. He only had to complete a noddy medical questionnaire (eg Do you suffer from blackouts?). Again I lobbied his doctor who said that fitness was judged purely on the answers that my father gave, and even if he lied, the doctor could not intervene, even though they had access to his medical history. There was no medical test apart from an eye test (which he passed).  I lobbied the local police, who said that as he had never been prosecuted for the accident, they could do nothing. Finally I spoke to his insurance company and in going through the detail with them, it came to light that he had claimed he had held his licence since age 17, whereas having surrendered his licence, legally he was now an 86 year old driver who had only held a licence for 1 month, and was therefore virtually uninsurable.

The law in this area truly is an ass, and the medical fraternity seem to be unable to help, even in a case where there is serious brain impairment.

What kind of eye test was your father sent for?  Was it just read a chart at the GP surgery or something more involved?

Given your father's history of a stroke, I'm surprised the DVLA didn't require an Esterman field test.  Which by the sounds of him having an obvious field defect on his left side he wouldn't have passed. 

Your doctor could have interviened (as it's in the public good), but that did put him at risk of your father hauling him up in front of the GMC for breaching patient confidentiality.

As you said he's not driving now, so it's all resolved.  I'm sorry it was a load of stress for you and the rest of the family.

oceandweller wrote:

Retesting for over 70s can't come soon enough. It doesn't even have to be a full retest, since ability to drive isn't the main problem. A test just covering perception, judgement & reflexes would do it. My 2 penn'orth. & I'm 67, so I remember when 2d (as it was then) still bought something...

A cognitive test which it would need to be if you wanted to test "perception, judgement & reflexes" takes far longer and requires staff trained in this, the quick tests you see Rugby players given are box ticking, brain is a complicated beast and can appear fine.

Dvla does refer folks to driving assement centers if some one's physical or cognitive ablities are in question. but clearly this is neither quick nor cheap.

I'm sure also that with mind to the fact as pointed out that older folks do vote, that no goverment is terribly keen to be  seen as the folks trying to take away grandads car.